Kan. City & O. R. Co. v. Frey

• Decision Date: 19 November 1890
• Citation: Kan. City & O. R. Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790, 47 N.W. 87 (Neb. 1890)
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: KANSAS CITY & O. R. CO. ET AL. v. FREY.

30 Neb. 790

47 N.W. 87

KANSAS CITY & O. R. CO. ET AL.

v.FREY.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 19, 1890.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A bill, which has but one general object that is fairly expressed in the title thereof, is not objectionable on the ground that it contains two or more subjects.

2. The act approved March 3, 1881, giving a laborer and material-man a lien upon a railway for material furnished and labor performed on such railway, does not contain more than one subject, and is not in conflict with the constitution.

Error to district court, Fillmore county; MORRIS, Judge.Hazlett & Bates, for plaintiffs in error.

Maule & Sloan, for defendant in error.

MAXWELL, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Fillmore county against the plaintiffs in error, to foreclose three liens claimed against the road-bed, rolling stock, etc., of the railway, for a balance due on a contract for the construction of said road through Fillmore county. The first cause of action was for a balance due the defendant in error on a subcontract for grading one mile of said road. The second cause was for work performed on said road by one William Pelker, and the third for work performed thereon by one A. Parviance. These claims were assigned to the defendant in error before bringing the action. On the trial of the cause, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error, and the railway company brings the cause into this court.

The principal error relied upon is that the act approved March 3, 1881, making the railway companies liable for work performed, and material furnished in the construction or repair of the road, is unconstitutional and void, because the bill contains more than one subject not embraced in the title. In White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505, this court held that where a bill has but one general object, it will be sufficient if the subject is fairly expressed in the title. The question is very fully...